The Internet isn't broken. Obama doesn't need to 'fix' it.

President Barack Obama's plan to regulate the Internet like a public utility is coming up for a vote Feb. 26.

President Barack Obama's plan to regulate the Internet like a public utility is coming up for a vote Feb. 26. (Andrew Harrer, Bloomberg)

Ajit Pai, Joshua Wright

FCC and FTC members' give the president some sharp advice: Leave the Internet alone.

If you like your wireless plan, you should be able to keep it. But new federal regulations may take away your freedom to choose the best broadband plan for you. It's all part of the federal government's 332-page plan to regulate the Internet like a public utility — a plan President Barack Obama asked the Federal Communications Commission to implement in November and that is coming up for a vote Feb. 26.

While the plan contains no shortage of regulations, the most problematic may be the new "Internet conduct" rule. It's a vague rule that gives the FCC almost unfettered discretion to micromanage virtually every aspect of the Internet, including the choices that consumers have for accessing it. If a company doesn't want to offer an expensive, unlimited data plan, it could find itself in the FCC's cross hairs.

But restricting service plan options is inherently anti-competitive and anti-consumer. The inevitable results will be higher prices and less service for consumers along with an especially adverse impact on small providers and upstart competitors trying to differentiate themselves in a crowded market.

Consider that activists promoting this rule had previously targeted neither AT&T nor Verizon with their first net-neutrality complaint but MetroPCS — an upstart competitor with a single-digit market share and not an ounce of market power. Its crime? Unlimited YouTube. MetroPCS offered a $40-per-month plan with unlimited talk, text, Web browsing and YouTube streaming. The company's strategy was to entice customers to switch from the four national carriers or to upgrade to its newly built 4G Long Term Evolution network.

Or take T-Mobile's Music Freedom program, which the Internet conduct rule puts on the chopping block. The "Un-carrier" allows consumers to stream as much online music as they want without charging it against their monthly data allowance. And consumers love it; T-Mobile has been growing fast and may soon overtake Sprint as the third-largest wireless operator.

Low-price, prepaid voice plans are now also suspect. These plans brought mobile service to millions of low-income households, and because carriers have upgraded these plans to include data, they're the chief reason why such households now have mobile Internet access. But because these plans aren't the all-you-can-eat plans endorsed by the FCC, they, too, may violate the Internet conduct rule.

Economists have long understood innovative business models and product offerings like these are good for consumers because they give them more choices and lower prices. Well-established regulatory economics has long rejected arguments to the contrary. To apply outmoded economic thinking to the Internet marketplace would just hurt consumers, especially the middle-class and low-income Americans who are the biggest beneficiaries of these plans.

And allowing new business models is critical to promote competition, particularly from smaller providers and new entrants. These entrepreneurs need the flexibility to experiment with different service plans so they can stand out from their larger competitors. Imposing a one-size-fits-all mandate from Washington would burden them, help the larger incumbents, reduce competition and stifle innovation.

The great irony here is that the Internet isn't broken, and we don't need the president's plan to "fix" it. Quite the opposite.

The Internet is an unparalleled success story. It is a free, open and thriving platform for civic and political engagement, economic growth, educational opportunity, entertainment and much more. It has made the United States the epicenter of innovation. It is why Internet entrepreneur Mark Cuban has observed, "There is no better platform in the world to start a new business than the Internet in the United States."

And here's another irony: Federal law already protects competition and consumers online — and the president's plan would strip away those protections. Indeed, the Federal Trade Commission has the authority to quickly address any anti-competitive exercise of market power, protect consumer privacy, and prevent deceptive and unfair practices that harm consumers. And it uses its authority aggressively to police market power and fraud in the Internet economy.

But regulating broadband service like a public utility denies the FTC these powers and denies consumers the protections that come with them. That's because the law makes clear that the FTC doesn't have jurisdiction over "common carriers," which is what broadband providers would become under the president's plan.

Why would we want to neuter the FTC when the Internet has flourished under the current regulatory model?

If all of this comes as a surprise, you're not alone. The plan has not been made public. And the FCC has made it clear that it won't be released until after the agency's commissioners vote on it. This is not right. We should have an open, transparent debate about whether the president's plan for Internet regulation is right for America's consumers. In our view, it most certainly is not.

Ajit Pai is a member of the Federal Communications Commission. Joshua Wright is a member of the Federal Trade Commission.